The investigators merged UNOS STAR Q2 2025 candidate, donor, transplant, and PTR match-run data to trace where sex differences appear between an initial donor-heart offer and post-transplant outcomes. The cohort comprised 51,970 listing episodes, 1,388,553 actual offers, and 38,417 realized recipients across what the authors call pre- and post-2018 eras. The study team evaluated sequential stages from offer exposure through acceptance to outcomes.
Transplant access increased for both sexes over the eras examined. The authors reported no statistical evidence of a sex-by-era interaction for access (P = .133), indicating the overall era-associated rise in access applied similarly to men and women. Short sentences reflect observed parity in access trends. Longer clauses describe how linking match-run data enabled stage-specific analysis rather than a single aggregate endpoint, allowing investigators to isolate where sex-based divergence first appears.
Offers routed to female candidates had higher adjusted conditional final-acceptance probabilities in both eras, according to the adjusted models (interaction P = .172). The manuscript notes that this pattern persisted after covariate adjustment. The authors used match-run data to assess acceptance conditional on exposure — not just recipient-level outcomes — so these finding relate to decisions made after offers were generated.
A donor composite threshold metric also varied by sex, but the direction of modest differences reversed across eras, the authors observed. The abstract does not report the full composition or weighting of that donor composite; the source did not provide further methodological detail in the abstract text.
Size-standardized analyses focused on predicted heart mass (PHM) undersizing, defined in the report as a PHM ratio below 0.86. After adjusting for recipient size, realized offers with severe PHM undersizing were less common for women than men in both eras: pre-policy 28.9% versus 38.3%; post-policy 25.5% versus 35.4%. The differential remained evident among offers that reached transplantation.
The investigators tested whether lower acceptance of undersized offers for female candidates explained the observed PHM difference. They report that acceptance of undersized offers was not lower for female candidates (three-way interaction P = .800). Thus, the PHM gap among realized offers was not solely attributable to a lower willingness to accept undersized hearts for women, based on the reported interaction tests.
Adjusted analyses showed higher rates of treated rejection among female recipients. The authors reported a male-versus-female odds ratio of 0.667 (95% CI, 0.589–0.756), indicating women had greater adjusted odds of receiving treatment for rejection. This pattern persisted after adjustment for post-policy calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) (OR 0.678; 95% CI, 0.583–0.790). The study abstract provides these point estimates and confidence intervals but does not elaborate on absolute treated-rejection rates or immunologic workup details in the abstract text.
Short sentences: women had more treated rejection. Longer analytical sentences follow: the persistence of this finding after cPRA adjustment suggests the excess treated rejection among women was not fully explained by the registry cPRA metric reported in the abstract.
The authors report adjusted post-policy 365-day survival of 91.0% in women and 92.3% in men. The change in the sex difference across eras did not reach statistical significance: -0.64 percentage points (95% CI, -1.97 to 0.68; P = .341). The report therefore documents a modest absolute survival gap favoring men post-policy, but no evidence that the gap changed meaningfully across the policy eras tested.
The team concludes that sex-associated patterns were stage-specific and multidirectional: differences emerged at the offer and matching stages (including the PHM gap) and in post-transplant management (higher treated rejection in women), while short-term survival differences were small and stable across eras, based on the reported estimates.
This investigation used deidentified United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry and match-run data available under a data use agreement; supplemental methods, tables, and figures accompany the manuscript per the source. The work is a retrospective observational analysis of registry data and was determined exempt by an institutional review board (IRB No. 172, Pro00073879; approved May 29, 2016); informed consent was waived.
Readers should note this is a medRxiv preprint and has not been peer reviewed. The abstract provides numerical outcomes, interaction P values, and odds ratios, but does not include granular methodological details (for example, model covariates, full donor composite components, or absolute treated-rejection rates) within the abstract text; those details are available only in the full manuscript and supplemental files. The authors state that deidentified registry and match-run data are accessible to qualified investigators through UNOS/OPTN and cannot be redistributed by the study team.
Limitations reported or implied by the study design include the retrospective registry nature of the analysis and the constraints of available registry fields; the abstract does not provide additional sensitivity analyses or subgroup breakdowns beyond the reported era comparisons. The authors recommend that transplantation performance be assessed separately across offer exposure, acceptance, matching, and outcomes to capture the stage-specific and multidirectional sex-associated patterns observed in their linked national cohort.